On the 3rd of December 2024, PubAffairs Bruxelles organised an afternoon of discussion on the EU’s industrial policy for the next legislative term with Andrea Wechsler MEP (EPP/DE), Nicola Gonzalez-Casares MEP (S&D/ES), Benedetta Scuderi MEP (Greens /IT) and Ondrej Krutilek MEP (ECR/CZ). Frank Breust, Senior Director, EU Government Affairs, BMW held an introductory speech.
The debate was moderated by Paola Tamma, EU Correspondent, Financial Times.
Frank Breust gave an introductory speech in which he emphasised the crucial role of the automotive industry in achieving the European Union’s goal of climate neutrality by 2050. He explained that the BMW Group has deployed a clear decarbonisation strategy and, as one of the leading manufacturers of drive technology, is strongly committed to electric mobility and its growth. He went on to explain that BMW is also committed to a technology-open approach, recognising that mobility needs to vary widely both globally and across Europe. He also highlighted that geopolitical issues are becoming increasingly relevant to both infrastructure and business development. Against this backdrop, he stated that the BMW Group is committed to continuing to offer its customers the best and most advanced drive technologies in the future, be it battery electric, plug-in hybrid, highly efficient combustion engines or fuel cell technology.
The speaker went on to explain that the production of electric vehicles requires a significant amount of resources, including carbon-intensive processes along the supply chain. For this reason, BMW is working closely with its suppliers to significantly reduce CO2 emissions along the chain. He added that critical raw materials are fundamental components of batteries for electric cars, making them an essential aspect of the decarbonisation of the mobility sector.
Subsequently, he elaborated on the need for Europe to remain competitive, sustainable and successful in its green transformation and remarked that realistic timelines and pragmatic strategies will be essential components of Europe’s adaptation to the new global reality. He illustrated his argument by explaining that the EU is indirectly mandating the technology for passenger cars through a value chain that it currently does not control or controls only partially. In addition, he emphasised that the availability and the processing of raw materials are crucial for the success of electric mobility. However, he pointed out that most of their mining and refining, as well as batteries’ cell production, currently occurs outside the EU, with no actual alternative in the foreseeable future.
On a different note, he stated that the set of EU rules and regulations concerning the decarbonisation of the economy and society has excessively focused on the end date for conventional technologies, rather than fostering the necessary conditions for the development and market uptake of new ones. Additionally, he invited the audience to look further into the value chain, with special regard to the final product, as every company needs the freedom to use the best technological solutions to reduce CO₂ emissions, beyond just the transport sector. He also mentioned that leveraging the full potential for reducing emissions in the mobility sector includes the utilisation of alternative carbon fuels to improve the footprint of 250 million vehicles currently used within the old continent, as it would help reduce Europe’s emissions and heavy dependency on the battery value chain immediately.
Frank Breust went towards the conclusion of his speech by going back to the geopolitical aspect of decarbonising mobility by explaining that being a global player means bringing manufacturing an added value to territories around the world. At the same time, he remarked, EU car manufacturers largely profit from free-trade, open markets as they are historically export-oriented. Nonetheless, he acknowledged, if trade wars escalated, every global car manufacturer would be negatively affected.
He went on to explain that the BMW Group has long operated on the principle of “local for the world”. However, he noted that the “for the world” part of the motto is currently under increasing pressure as trade defence mechanisms are being (or are about to be) applied around the world. In this context, he recalled that tariffs trigger countermeasures, with every actor involved losing in the end. This dynamic also applies to the supply base on which the European automotive industry is heavily dependent, explaining that this trend is further increasing geopolitical risks and supply chain disruptions, he added.
The speaker finally reiterated the concept that EU policies should provide a clear but flexible policy framework for companies to develop new, innovative strategies to compete on a global scale. He concluded by affirming that a renewed policy framework would strengthen European industry as a whole, as well as ensure long-term prosperity and economic security.
Paola Tamma thanked the speaker and, following a concise elaboration on the past and present economic dynamics of the European continent and the issue of Europe’s competitiveness, she asked the panellists to provide an explanation as to why industrial policy has become such a significant issue for the EU again at this particular juncture.
Andrea Wechsler MEP referred herself to Mr Breust’s speech. She elaborated on the urgency for a renewed industrial policy since the EU is confronted with a multitude of sectors experiencing significant challenges, as prominently exemplified by steel and automotive. Furthermore, she drew attention to the mission letters of the new Commissioners, emphasising that the social implications of poor industrial policies, such as unemployment and inflation, are becoming increasingly salient issues for EU citizens.
She further stated that, in the last twenty years, it has become evident that countries such as China and the United States will compete for prominence, giving rise to a variety of consequences. This dynamic, she specified, also entails an acknowledgement of the mounting external pressures to which Europe will be subjected. This pressure necessitates immediate action and, as the present moment is of critical importance, MEP Wechsler emphasised that the Europe’s future wellbeing hinges on the old continent’s ability to address these concerns over the course of the next legislative mandate.
Ondrej Krutilek MEP started his reply by stating that, in comparison with the previous legislative period, the EU is obliged to reassess its approach to decarbonisation by taking into consideration its prevailing social and economic realities. He went on to explain that, whilst there are many pieces of legislation that are to be implemented now, the EU has been ill-prepared to face the aforementioned geopolitical shifts. He further remarked that the EU must adjust the European Green Deal and its underlying industrial policy. He also elaborated on the incongruity of promoting the Green Deal without incorporating industrial policy from the outset of the green transition architecture. MEP Krutilek also highlighted that both the US and China have their own versions of the Green Deal. Against this backdrop, he emphasised that the EU must work with the resources it has, namely policy initiatives and regulations, in order to address the questions stemming from the current economic juncture.
Benedetta Scuderi MEP countered Ondrej Krutilek’s assertions, highlighting that the current circumstances cannot be attributed to the European Green Deal, given the absence of its full implementation. She also emphasised that the EU’s initial failure to formulate a comprehensive industrial strategy, even at the national level, has been a glaring shortcoming for decades.
She went on by identifying the long-term reliance on fossil fuels as a crucial factor contributing to Europe’s current vulnerability, especially regarding energy prices. For this reason, she stated that energy costs are a significant factor in determining Europe’s competitiveness. In addition, she underscored that the impact of the Green Deal would only become fully apparent within the next five to ten years.
MEP Scuderi subsequently acknowledged the necessity for adjustments and enhancements in various aspects of EU policies by emphasising the imperative to address the pressing issue of climate emergency, which would inevitably impact the EU economy, productivity and competitiveness. She also cautioned against disregarding the influence of global superpowers, observing that their myopia often hinders the ability to formulate long-term visions. She concluded her reply by highlighting the necessity to adopt a forward-looking approach, as opposed to a retrospective one, as the most significant challenge in the present context.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares’s answer focused on the EU’s reliance on energy sources that it does not produce itself, instead of having invested more in wind, solar and water power. He then stated that, whilst the EU’s energy independence remains unattainable in full, there is a compelling rationale for augmenting the production of both green energy and clean technologies. He concurred with the opinion of MEP Scuderi, stating that the EU is not falling behind other regions of the world due to the Green Deal, but rather because of Europe’s loss of time in developing and adopting cutting-edge technologies.
MEP Gonzalez-Casares further asserted that the European Green Deal should not be regarded as problematic, but rather as an opportunity and a strategic catalyst for Europe’s economic growth. Indeed, he emphasised the importance for the EU to move in the right direction, implementing all the necessary measures to move forward with the green transition, including fostering the re-industrialisation of specific regions and ensuring a just transition. In conclusion, given the EU’s dependency on clean technologies in the absence of fossil fuels, the MEP reiterated that it is imperative for the EU to take a leadership role in green growth.
Paola Tamma noted the ongoing debate in the European Parliament and the Council regarding the EU’s direction for the next five years. Whilst some stakeholders wish to maintain the status quo, others are questioning the relevance of the current trajectory. She also emphasised the focus on identifying policy levers, even assuming the commitment to the 2040/2050 targets. She also noted that the previous legislative mandate had focused on turning the European Green Deal into legislation and on setting targets to be achieved throughout the legislative process. The moderator also referred to the point made by Ondrej Krutilek about the social and economic acceptability of the Green Deal, a topic that has generated debate despite being in its early stages. She then mentioned European Commission President von der Leyen’s comments on the need for a Clean Industrial Deal as a continuation of the Green Deal, emphasising that the issue of sector and technology prioritisation remain. The moderator concluded by asking the panellists to identify the key policies and sectors they would prioritise in the Clean Industrial Deal.
Benedetta Scuderi MEP answered by elaborating on the pivotal role of a strategic approach in formulating the Clean Industrial Deal. She emphasised the necessity of incorporating the technology Europe needs to mitigate climate, whilst also taking into account the direction taken by other global leaders. She subsequently stated that this strategy should prioritise sectors which are vital for the transition, including renewable energy, storage technologies and circular economic models, and in all domains in which Europe has already showcased excellence. She cited the EU’s leadership in recycling over 98% of the components of batteries as an example of a domain where investments should be prioritised.
MEP Scuderi then reiterated the importance of investing in industries where Europe has a competitive advantage, whilst ensuring that these industries adapt to future requirements. She also emphasised the crucial role of supporting industries and workers throughout the transition, as well as the importance of investing in innovation and research to understand how the EU can differentiate itself from other global powers to lead in emerging technologies. Finally, Benedetta Scuderi remarked the necessity of unity and a shared commitment to this strategic approach, warning that, without shared goals, it will be difficult to foster investments and grant Europe a prosperous future.
Andrea Wechsler highlighted that the European Green Deal is still in progress, which she saw favourably in light of the climate crisis the world is experiencing and Europe’s responsibility to address it. She also clarified that we should not confuse the Green Deal with the Clean Industrial Deal as the latter complements the former.
MEP Wechsler subsequently focused on two priorities. First, she advocated unlocking investments by reducing the regulatory burden, especially on SMEs. She then suggested a more trust-based approach rather than a target-based one in order to encourage the mobilisation of private capital rather than reliance on public funding. Secondly, she stressed the urgent need to reduce energy prices and establish a fully functioning Energy Union to foster a thriving industry in the coming years.
She subsequently pointed out that Europe is massively lagging behind in the AI sector and underlined the high potential of the digital sector, as well as the difficulties of energy-intensive industries. Indeed, she stated, Europe’s energy-intensive industries are crucial not only for employment, but also for the EU defence sector, as well as to enhance economic security and to attain Europe’s strategic autonomy. Finally, she reiterated the urgency of supporting the private sector as a whole by meeting its needs and continuing the efforts to reduce energy prices.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares MEP stressed that the Clean Industrial Deal should be consistent with the European Green Deal. With several files and regulations still to be implemented from the previous legislative mandate, he argued that the priority should not be to introduce new regulations, but rather to focus on implementing the existing ones. However, he stressed the need for a clear path to decarbonisation to meet the EU’s climate targets.
The MEP subsequently reiterated the need to remain competitive in green technologies, which are important for emerging industries, for the re-industrialisation of some sectors of the EU economy as well as to combat climate change. He also highlighted the panorama of opportunities that the adaptation of the EU economy could bring about. With regard to the automotive sector, he drew attention to the significant problems the sector is facing, including job losses. Finally, MEP Gonzalez-Casares wondered whether these difficulties were a consequence of the European Green Deal or they were due to Europe’s slow progress in developing green technologies.
Ondrej Krutilek MEP replied by arguing that sustainable development should be based on the environmental, economic and social acceptance of the European Green Deal. However, the previous legislative mandate had predominantly focused on its environmental and climate-related aspects, he added. He also contended that the fundamental issue is not the Green Deal itself, but rather the inadequacy of the existing regulations to fulfil their intended purpose. He subsequently emphasised the necessity for a comprehensive evaluation and alignment of adopted legislation, such as the ‘Fit for 55’ package, with actual realities.
Furthermore, he emphasised that the European Commission is still compelled to manage several delegated and implemented acts, highlighting the need for predictability in regulatory approaches to ensure stability for businesses and citizens alike. He also criticised the proposal of stricter regulations for 2040 without guaranteeing the attainment of the 2030 targets. Instead, he advocated for a strategy of addressing existing challenges and charting a course for the future. In this context, he highlighted the European Parliament’s role, cautioning against over-legislation and the subsequent regret that often accompanies such action, particularly in the context of calling for investments.
Addressing the moderator’s earlier question, MEP Krutilek opposed the selective support for specific sectors by stressing the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach. Instead, he advocated for a strategic focus on pivotal industries, such as steel and automotive, which he asserted are of critical importance to Europe as a whole. To illustrate this point, he cited the example of the impossibility of wind turbine production without steel. Conversely, he emphasised that European steel manufacturers are facing difficulties due to the stringent restrictions imposed by the EU which, he argued, are dictating their future actions. The MEP concluded by calling for a broader perspective on the EU’s industrial strategy and the adoption of concrete, pragmatic solutions.
Paola Tamma highlighted that EU politicians across different parties wish to maintain continuity with the Green Deal, but also acknowledged potential tensions in its implementation. She took CO2 emission standards for cars as an example, noting that the 2035 target effectively bans combustion engines and remains controversial. Indeed, some politicians argue for revising interim targets, whilst others insist on keeping them to protect industry investments. She also touched on whether policy methods should change rather than targets due to market dependencies and cited the risks of Volkswagen closing plants and Northvolt facing bankruptcy. Paola Tamma concluded by asking the panellists if they would revise their vote on CO2 standards and what changes they would make.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares MEP expressed his satisfaction with Commissioner Hoekstra’s clear commitment to the 2030 target during the confirmation hearings, noting that the EPP and the current parliamentary majority can be relied on to make it happen. He also stressed that changing the target would give an advantage to EU’s competitors. He cited the Northvolt example, highlighting their substantial investments in inappropriate technologies as a primary factor in their bankruptcy. The MEP finally emphasised the need for policy consistency and stated that he would not be amending the CO2 standards dossier.
Andrea Wechsler MEP stated that she was pleased not to have been required to vote on the 2035 targets in the previous instance, as it provided her with greater freedom to make improvements now. She also noted that her party did not vote on the targets, as they believe that defining the technologies should be left to the market rather than to industries. She then compared the EU’s social market economy to China’s planned economy, advocating for more technology openness. She also highlighted China’s hybrid solutions, such as range extenders, as examples of technologies that are not aligned with Europe’s 2035 targets. Whilst highlighting the agreement with her party’s voting decision, the MEP emphasised the challenging nature of the situation and argued that penalty payments in 2025 are misguided, because they reduce companies’ investment potential, rather than allowing them to utilise the capital needed to meet decarbonisation goals. She finally stated that she would also not be amending the CO2 standards dossier.
Benedetta Scuderi MEP highlighted that the EU frequently adopts resolutions concerning technologies, encompassing both prohibitions and incentives, particularly in instances where they are detrimental to the citizens’ or the environment’s well-being. She also argued that this is a standard legislative procedure. With regard to the CO2 standards dossier, she proposed the incorporation of a social amortisation fund aimed at facilitating the re-skilling of workers. She also emphasised that the unions are advocating for this and underscored the absence of re-skilling plans.
Furthermore, MEP Scuderi expressed confidence in the 2035 targets, emphasising the necessity for prompt action to avoid China overtaking the EU. She also referred to the COP27, where an agreement was reached to phase out fossil fuels and questioned how the EU can still protect combustion engines. She concluded by stating that the primary focus should be on identifying the most effective strategies to transition away from fossil fuels in order to maintain the EU’s competitive edge.
Ondrej Krutilek began by acknowledging that securing the necessary financial resources for the reskilling fund is a primary concern. He then emphasised the significance of adopting technologically-neutral policies and expressed his opposition to the 2035 targets, stating that no technology should be prohibited. Furthermore, he stressed the significance of ensuring that EU institutions’ decisions are not only accepted by businesses, but also by citizens. He then highlighted that, in several member states, citizens’ mobility is often facilitated by older vehicles, and that the purchase of new, more advanced models can be challenging. Furthermore, the MEP expressed his concern that a significant proportion of EU citizens may continue to rely on older vehicles due to financial constraints, which would consequently hinder the pursuit of environmental sustainability goals. He advocated for the introduction of affordable new cars as the most effective measures to support environmental objectives and urged policymakers to refrain from over-legislation and to take account of reality as a whole.
In response to MEP Krutilek’s statement, Benedetta Scuderi MEP emphasised that purchasing a car, regardless of its engine type, is financially challenging for many EU citizens. She then cited the ongoing economic crisis, stagnant wages and rising inflation as key factors contributing to this dynamic. She also highlighted that EU citizens are experiencing a decline in their financial well-being. However, she stated that, if the EU followed the right path, within ten to fifteen years, there would be a significant number of affordable second-hand electric cars on the market.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares MEP took the floor to state that the real issue is not that EU citizens cannot afford cars, but that they first have to pay housing, which is a primary question in Europe. He also referred to Ondrej Krutilek’s point on technological neutrality, arguing that it can be problematic, particularly when it comes to energy generation. He also noted that, for example, the EPP and the ECR political groups were still advocating for nuclear energy, even though renewables are cheaper in terms of energy production. He then emphasised that developing a nuclear energy plan would require significant resources, primarily in the form of subsidies. On the topic of market regulation, MEP Gonzalez-Casares highlighted the EU’s role in ensuring regulatory support for citizens, not just industries. He cited tariffs on Chinese vehicles as an example of how regulations can be detrimental, highlighting the potential challenges of removing such tariffs.
Andrea Wechsler MEP conceded that MEP Gonzalez-Casares’s point about the difficulties citizens have in affording housing and cars was valid. However, she explained that this phenomenon is due to the substantial decline in the purchasing power of European citizens. Such decline, she continued, originates from the EU’s decreasing productivity, especially compared to the United States, which in turn is resurging from de-industrialisation. In this respect, she emphasised that the industrial base is the fundamental issue that needs to be addressed.
With regard to the technological neutrality approach, MEP Wechsler noted that the discussion encompasses a broad spectrum of energy sources, including geothermal and fusion power, thus extending beyond the conventional nuclear energy and renewables. She also highlighted the EU’s loss of major start-ups, such as Marvel Fusion, to the US market, attributing this to Europe’s perceived lack of attractiveness.
In response to MEP Scuderi’s comments on the outcomes of the COP29, MEP Wechsler provided an opposite perspective, affirming her pride in the EU’s global leadership, particularly in the absence of engagement from major players such as China and the United States. She remarked that the EU is trusted by other countries and is recognised as a reliable source of support for those in need of climate adaptation. She also stated that the EU has tripled the budget allocated to these countries. MEP Wechsler also highlighted the significance of the arrangement on carbon markets, which she considers a substantial breakthrough that is not often recognised. She also expressed her satisfaction with the EU’s balanced stance taken at COP29, which she believes takes responsibility without further burdening its citizens and industries.
Paola Tamma highlighted that the EU does not operate in isolation and that its actions, as well as those of others, have a significant impact. She referenced the vote on tariffs for electric vehicles, which, in her opinion, has divided European policymakers. She noted that this situation could become more frequent in the future, particularly if a re-elected US President Trump imposed tariffs on European exports and even higher ones on China, thus potentially diverting trade towards Europe. The moderator pointed out that the EU’s open-market approach allows access to cheaper Chinese electric cars, raising the question of what the real issue is. She then invited the panellists to share their thoughts on the matter.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares MEP expressed his support for the introduction of tariffs on vehicles, citing the significant subsidies received from the Chinese government as a key factor in his stance. Despite the potential for such measures to increase the cost of automobiles, he advocated for a more nuanced approach that takes into account the broader context, including the fact that the EU provides subsidies to its automotive sector and facilitates the purchase of electric vehicles. Additionally, MEP Gonzalez-Casares highlighted the absence of a robust solar panel industry within the EU, advising against the allocation of resources to the development of such an industry in the foreseeable future. Instead, he advocated for the EU to provide subsidies for the installation of solar panels, since they are a primary component of investment.
Addressing the question of the automotive industry, MEP Gonzalez-Casares contended that, contrary to the approach taken with solar panels, the EU must adopt a protective stance and formulate a definitive strategy. He emphasised the necessity for the EU to invest substantially and expeditiously in battery technology. Furthermore, he argued that Europe could attract Chinese technologies and factories, listing some examples of companies that had previously built factories in China and were closing in Europe.
Benedetta Scuderi MEP emphasised the necessity of a re-evaluation of the EU’s trust in the market-based approach to economy and globalisation. She concurred with MEP Gonzalez-Casares’s position that the market should not be allowed to operate in isolation, citing the issue of housing as an example. She contended that the market does provide optimal solutions. With regard to the tariffs on electric vehicles, MEP Scuderi elucidated that the EU’s position is divided: despite being only temporary, this solution prevents the industry from suffering in the short term. Tariffs, she explained, are a means of buying time for the EU to develop strategies to support its industry and make it competitive, as well as to establish a second-hand vehicle market.
Furthermore, the speaker emphasised that Chinese companies benefit from subsidies and adhere to different environmental and climate standards than Europe. She then stated that the EU must transition away from tariffs and implement mechanisms, such as a more extensive Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), to ensure pricing transparency and fairness. The speaker concluded by arguing that the imposition of taxes on countries that fail to respect the EU’s environmental standards would encourage them to produce in a more environmentally friendly and qualitative way.
Andrea Wechsler MEP clarified that the EU had invariably operated within a multilateral trading system and contributed to an open trade system, whilst other countries were undermining it. Consequently, she advocated for an evaluation of the necessary measures to take given this context. She asserted that the EU, despite implementing tariffs, lacked the capacity to compete with China in the production of electric vehicles. In line with the Draghi Report, MEP Wechsler emphasised the necessity for the EU to prioritise labour cost, productivity and tax burdens in order to enhance its competitiveness, facilitate local production of electric vehicles and ensure their affordability. She concluded by emphasising the need to shift the discourse from short-term tariff considerations to the development of long-term strategies aimed at enhancing Europe’s competitiveness.
Ondrej Krutilek MEP endorsed what MEP Wechsler stated.
Paola Tamma recalled that the last European Commission was endorsed by what some referred to as the “Green Deal Majority”, where centrist and left-leaning groups, including the Greens, had voted in favour of von der Leyen and her programme. Whereas, she pointed out, the new European Commission was endorsed with votes splitting in different groupings. She also noted that, in the European Parliament, alternative majorities were possible, citing examples such as the vote on the EU Deforestation Law. In this context, the moderator asked whether the EPP, as the largest group, could shift majorities by changing orientation. Against this backdrop, she asked the panellists what kind of impact this shift might have on the industrial policy agenda.
Andrea Wechsler MEP highlighted the substantial change in the composition of the European Parliament, noting that, during the previous mandate, progressive and environmentalist parties had exerted greater influence. The European People’s Party (EPP) is the largest group, comprising 188 members, she clarified, thus establishing a clear pivotal role within the European Parliament. She also pointed out that the presence of a parliamentary majority invariably encompasses the EPP, thus excluding the occurrence of a convergence among opposing forces.
MEP Wechsler subsequently emphasised that the EPP was the driving force behind the proposal to accelerate the implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal. She also clarified that, prior to the establishment of the majority for the election of Ursula von der Leyen and of the new College of Commissioners, there had been no formal coalition agreement, except for the accords made with the Renew and S&D Groups. She also remarked that the EPP did not have any ongoing structural cooperation with any of the other political groups. At the same time, she acknowledged that the EPP reserved itself the right to vote with alternative majorities, stating that this is how the European Parliament has always functioned. Beyond industrial policies, MEP Wechsler reaffirmed the EPP’s commitment to centre-right politics, the democratic reform of Europe, the fight for pro-European values, the rule of law as well as its support to Ukraine.
Nicolás Gonzalez-Casares MEP asserted that the EPP had to reach a decision regarding its position. Specifically, the group had to choose between two possible courses of action, namely: it could present itself as pro-European and advocate for increased unity and democracy or, alternatively, adopt an anti-European position, aligning itself with populist movements and the far-right. He emphasised the urgency of taking a clear decision, stating that there was no room for ambiguity. He then proceeded to outline his vision for a strategy of engagement with the EPP, the Greens, Renew Europe and, eventually, The Left, with the aim of fostering collaboration with pro-European groups. MEP Gonzalez-Casares cautioned that, if the EPP relied on populist alternatives, it would risk to lose consensus to the far-right, as evidenced by the recent legislative elections in Romania, where far-right parties garnered almost 10% of the EPP votes.
Ondrej Krutilek MEP argued that the ECR had shifted from being labelled as anti-European to mainstream. Whilst acknowledging that the S&D and the Greens might not agree with his opinion, he stated that it was accurate and suggested communicating about this shift more openly. He went on to emphasise that he does not support the idea of sidelining any political force and that, if there was the willingness to support ECR’s stances, this support should be welcomed. He went on to state that, whilst the ECR was not seeking to align with the EPP, there is a precedent for this in the past, citing the successful establishment of an alternative coalition for the Euro 7 file, which comprised the EPP, Renew, ECR and ID groups. Furthermore, MEP Krutilek clarified that this approach might not be applicable to every vote, and emphasised the importance of adhering to the option that garners the most support.
From a broader standpoint, MEP Krutilek cautioned that disregarding particular aspects of the European Parliament could potentially result in the empowerment of certain populist parties, which might become even more vocal than they currently are. Furthermore, he acknowledged the presence of significant differences and nuances within the right-wing end of the EU political spectrum. However, he also opposed the labelling of right-wing parties as pro- or anti-European, as he believed this would hinder the broader European project, for which he has always demonstrated his support. Instead, he advocated for the adoption of more pragmatic policies that align more closely with the needs of European citizens.
Benedetta Scuderi MEP emphasised the importance of coherence in politics, expressing her concern that several political groups are often lacking this quality. To illustrate this point, she cited the example of the ECR, which sometimes appears to be pro-European, as opposed to the actions of Italian Prime Minister Meloni, a prominent figure within the ECR. She elaborated on how the Italian PM’s stances on Europe underwent a significant shift, transitioning from pronounced euroscepticism to a pro-European posture, a transformation that coincided with her rise to the role of Prime Minister.
MEP Scuderi also emphasised that a commitment to both the principles stemming from being pro-European and the rule of law should be of paramount importance for individuals engaged in professional activities within the ambit of the European Parliament. She went on to criticise those political parties that had voted against these values in the previous legislative mandate or who are supporting figures such as Victor Orbán.
She went on by explaining the negative repercussions which endorsing either side can bring about, contending that it hinders both the role and the functioning of the European Parliament, as evidenced by recent budget votes. She cited the example of the EPP’s vote for several amendments put forward by the far-right that advocate for the utilisation of EU funds for the construction of detention centres and walls against immigration throughout Europe, a course of action she defined as unacceptable. Regarding the Greens group, she acknowledged the presence of some minor internal divisions, highlighting that, contrary to others, the Italian delegation voted against the current Commission. Nevertheless, she expressed her conviction that her group would never compromise on core EU values, and that this constitutes the essence of a coherent political behaviour.
The Q&A session covered the following issues: EU citizens’ purchasing power in light of the current economic performances; the question of the EU trade deficit and the imbalance in investment flows; the question of the digital transition and the European industry; the issues of venture capital, investments and the implementation of the Capital Markets Union (CMU); the question of start-ups created in Europe moving to the US; the extent to which the Draghi Report should serve as the foundation a fully-fledged EU industrial policy; creating an EU regulatory environment that supports the sustainability efforts; the question of “strategic manufacturing”; the EU relations and competition with China; the importance of having more EU-funded public investment; the questions emerging from the approval of the EU budget; the question of the European way of life; the need for a better redistribution of wealth.
Do you wish to know more about the issues discussed in this debate? Then check out the selected sources provided below!
General principles of EU industrial policy, European Parliament
The Draghi report on EU competitiveness, European Commission
Strategic agenda 2024-2029, European Council
The Antwerp Declaration for a European Industrial Deal
Mario Draghi: An Industrial Strategy For Europe, Groupe d’études géopolitiques
Mario Draghi: Radical Change—Is What Is Needed, Groupe d’études géopolitiques
The EU Needs a Strong Clean Industrial Deal, Bruegel
A blueprint for transforming EU industry through place-based innovation, CEPS
Industrial Policy Is Back. Now What?, Project Syndicate
Europe Needs a Coordinated Approach to Industrial Policy, International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Utilising national subsidies for EU industrial policy, Jacques Delors Centre
Industrial Policy: Key to Europe’s Role in a Shifting World Order, Social Europe
Stéphane Séjourné wants a more proactive industrial policy, Science Business
There Can Be No Business as Usual for European Industry, Project Syndicate
